Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Raw photo software

Reply
Thread Tools

Raw photo software

 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-13-2012
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 09:10:20 -0400, "Mayayana"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>| no interest in a catalog of thumbnail
>| images, no interest in sorting by keyword, and no interest in changing
>| from Gimp to another image editor, then all you gain by purchasing
>| Lightroom is a RAW processor.
>
> Indeed, that's all I want at this point. To my mind
>the basic image editor (GIMP, PSP, PS, etc.) is something
>that *could* be in the same program, but right now I'm
>not concerned about that. I just want to understand
>what the raw editing options are, and the pros and cons
>of the programs I might use for it. And as noted, the
>integrated file browsing *features* are on the "cons"
>list for me.
>
>| Elements also
>| works with NEF files. The difference would be that in LR you export
>| as a .jpg, and in Elements you Save As a .jpg.
>
> I wondered about that. It doesn't seem to make
>sense that one would take such great care with a
>photo only to save it in a lossy format. On Windows
>I typically make a BMP copy of images I expect to
>be fiddling with, then work from that and only save
>to JPG if it's going online, but the OSS programs don't
>do BMPs.


I have never used a RAW processor only. I've only used Lightroom,
Photoshop CS4, and Elements 9.0 for processing RAW files.

In Lightroom, you do your adjustments to the RAW file and that file
remains in LR. If you want to use any other editing program, you
export that file to work on it. In the secondary editing process, you
save the edited file as a .jpg, .psd, .tiff, etc. Whatever you want
that your secondary editing program will allow. The file in that
format is not in LR, but you can import it in that format back to LR.
If you don't want to use LR as a catalog, there's no reason to import
it, though.

In PS and Elements, after the adjustments in the RAW file, you "open"
the file in PS or Elements for secondary editing. After secondary
editing, you "save as" a .jpg, .psd, .tiff, etc.

So, what you have is the RAW file retained in either case, and a
version of that file in another format. The difference between the LR
workflow and the PS or Elements workflow is that you have more options
in editing the RAW in LR. You have more total options in editing in
PS or Elements, but the additional options are to the file that will
become the .jpg, .psd, .tiff, etc. Any options you use in PS or
Elements are not to the RAW file.

>What about TIFFs? Does it make sense to
>save and store works-in-progress as TIFF, after finishing
>with raw processing?


Depends. If you use LR for editing files, then, no. You wouldn't
save the files as .tiffs in LR anyway (although you can import them
back into LR). With a work-in-progess, you can edit in LR over
several sessions and everything you've done is retained in the file.

If you use PS or Elements for editing files, you can save the file in
either .psd or .tiff and work on it at a later session, but the NEF or
..dng file will not include the secondary edits done in the RAW mode.

There are arguments about whether .psd or .tiff is the better way, but
I'm not going to get into that. I save as only .psds, but I don't
think it makes much difference. What I want is the retention of the
layers I've created.

You keep resisting the suggestions to download trials, but doing so
would make a lot of your questions unnecessary. You can't download
and use a trial of LR because you have XP and the only trial available
is not compatible, but you can download Adobe Elements 10 and get a
feel for the RAW processing controls in two or three evening sessions.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
otter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-13-2012
On Aug 13, 9:34*am, "Mayayana" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> | the problem is that you're using a dead end operating system.
> | any reason you aren't upgrading to windows 7?
>
> * It's wildly overpriced, bloated, restrictive spyware that
> I'd like to avoid.


My experience with Windows 7 has been good, especially compared to
Vista and XP. I realize there are a lot of XP lovers, but it used to
drive me crazy. Windows 7 is much more stable for me, and faster than
Vista. I realize others never had stability issues with XP, but that
wasn't my experience. I remember lots of crashes, rebuilding system
disks, and cursing Bill Gates while using XP.

I'm not sure what to think about Windows 8, though.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-13-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> In Lightroom, you do your adjustments to the RAW file and that file
> remains in LR. If you want to use any other editing program, you
> export that file to work on it. In the secondary editing process, you
> save the edited file as a .jpg, .psd, .tiff, etc. Whatever you want
> that your secondary editing program will allow. The file in that
> format is not in LR, but you can import it in that format back to LR.
> If you don't want to use LR as a catalog, there's no reason to import
> it, though.


there's no need to export and re-import if you use photoshop alongside
lightroom. all changes made in lightroom transfer over, and lightroom
tracks what you do in photoshop.

> >What about TIFFs? Does it make sense to
> >save and store works-in-progress as TIFF, after finishing
> >with raw processing?

>
> Depends. If you use LR for editing files, then, no. You wouldn't
> save the files as .tiffs in LR anyway (although you can import them
> back into LR). With a work-in-progess, you can edit in LR over
> several sessions and everything you've done is retained in the file.


actually, the changes are retained in lightroom's database. the
original file is untouched.
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-13-2012
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 10:44:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> This whole "cataloguing" thing has taken me by
>surprise. I think of that handholding, like what Picasa
>does, as a kind of training wheels GUI used by
>beginners who don't understand the filesystem.


I think you misunderstand the meaning of "cataloging". You are
currently cataloging your files. I don't know how, but you probably
have them in folders with some identifying folder name. Possibly, as
sub-folders. If you want to find a particular image, you probably go
to a folder named with a date range or an event name. Any form of
organization of individual files is cataloging.

With Lightroom, you can use just one "catalog". It's the equivalent
of you putting all of your images in one folder. In either case, your
file naming convention can determine order of view, but LR allows you
to sort different ways. In the LR catalog, you see a thumbnail of the
image instead of just the name of the image file.

I have two LR catalogs: one for family photos and one for hobby
photos. I don't have to have two, and I could have more, but that's
the system I like to work with.

I utilize keywords in order to locate images. In the "family"
catalog, I'll keyword an image with the year taken and any other
specifics (like an event) that are relevant to the image. I can then
sort by keyword(s) and view only the thumbnails of images taken in a
particular year at a particular event or whatever.

I really don't understand why you object to thumbnails. Digital
shooters typically shoot multiple images of the same subject and pick
one to process. The file name doesn't tell you which of the multiple
shots is the best one. The thumbnail shows you. Typically, digital
shooters run through the thumbnails and pick a few to delete and a few
to process. You don't have to open each file to see it.

I'm not trying to get you to change your ways, but I don't understand
it.

> It's hard to imagine that the people taking raw photos
>might be the same people who want something like Picasa
>to do all their thinking for them.


I shoot RAW, I catalog files, and I view thumbnails. I wouldn't touch
Picasa with a ten-foot pole.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mayayana
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-13-2012

| I think they have a trial version you can download and try out, so I
| suggest you just do that, and perhaps read a few reviews of it online.
|

Well, that was a short test. AfterShotPro looks pretty
good in general, but as of now it can't open a Nikon D3200
NEF and it can't open a DNG. Worse, it doesn't tell me that.
There's just no response when I browse for the file! It
also ignored my choice of window background color and
doesn't come with a help file. Not very promising. It might
be worth trying when an update comes out, but at this
point I can't test the functionality. Thanks, anyway. At
least it's not a gigantically bloated program. The download
was a reasonable 59 MB.


 
Reply With Quote
 
David Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-13-2012
On 13/08/2012 14:21, Mayayana wrote:
[]
> I actually wrote a small program for her to do batch
> cropping/resizing.


IrfanView also has that capability in batch mode, for anyone who doesn't
have your programming skills.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-13-2012
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:10:35 -0400, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> In Lightroom, you do your adjustments to the RAW file and that file
>> remains in LR. If you want to use any other editing program, you
>> export that file to work on it. In the secondary editing process, you
>> save the edited file as a .jpg, .psd, .tiff, etc. Whatever you want
>> that your secondary editing program will allow. The file in that
>> format is not in LR, but you can import it in that format back to LR.
>> If you don't want to use LR as a catalog, there's no reason to import
>> it, though.

>
>there's no need to export and re-import if you use photoshop alongside
>lightroom. all changes made in lightroom transfer over, and lightroom
>tracks what you do in photoshop.


But he's not using Photoshop. He's using Gimp. I don't use Gimp (but
I have), but - as far as I know - there's no option to "Edit in Gimp"
in LR and have that edited file retained in LR without importing it.

My LR allows me to edit in CS4 or in Elements 9.0. He's not using my
system, though.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-13-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> In Lightroom, you do your adjustments to the RAW file and that file
> >> remains in LR. If you want to use any other editing program, you
> >> export that file to work on it. In the secondary editing process, you
> >> save the edited file as a .jpg, .psd, .tiff, etc. Whatever you want
> >> that your secondary editing program will allow. The file in that
> >> format is not in LR, but you can import it in that format back to LR.
> >> If you don't want to use LR as a catalog, there's no reason to import
> >> it, though.

> >
> >there's no need to export and re-import if you use photoshop alongside
> >lightroom. all changes made in lightroom transfer over, and lightroom
> >tracks what you do in photoshop.

>
> But he's not using Photoshop. He's using Gimp. I don't use Gimp (but
> I have), but - as far as I know - there's no option to "Edit in Gimp"
> in LR and have that edited file retained in LR without importing it.


there is.

for other apps, lightroom will create an intermediate file and track
all changes. you don't need to explicitly export and re-import.

since photoshop can read lightroom's metadata directly, there's no need
for that intermediate file. they both use the same camera raw. you
don't lose anything.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mayayana
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-13-2012
|
| > | the problem is that you're using a dead end operating system.
| > | any reason you aren't upgrading to windows 7?
| >
| > It's wildly overpriced, bloated, restrictive spyware that
| > I'd like to avoid.
|
| it's not really any different than xp in that regard.
|

It's quite a bit different in a number of ways, but
I doubt the people here really want to get into those
details. Just as a single example: A WinXP base install
is about 1 GB. With Vista/7 it's more like 7-9 GB. Then
it grows from there into the 10s of GB, and the
unnecessary bloat can't be deleted without destabilizing
the whole, bloated mess.

| what do you mean 'what apple is getting away with'? apple is less
| restrictive than microsoft and windows.
|

I should know better than to discuss with an AppleSeed.
I might just as well debate a Jehovah's Witness. But I
can't resist such a wacky comment as that.

I regard MS, Apple and Adobe, all, as sleazy, greedy
companies that I prefer not to deal with any more than
necessary.

Apple makes very good products with very
high prices, extensive customer lock-in, and general
restrictions. (Steve Jobs, when asked by the architect
of their UFO campus about windows, famously said that
the windows should not open because, "if you let people
open things they only screw it up".) Apple has had special
screws designed so that people can't open their products.
They tightly control software. They tightly control "apps"
in their online store. They tightly control hardware options.
Meanwhile they market to people who take pride in being
nonconformists who "think different". And how do they
think different? By doing whatever Apple tells them to do.

What makes Apple products stable is the very lockdown that
limits their flexibility. I think of it like so: Macs are a car with
the hood welded shut. Windows is a normal car. Linux is
a do-it-yourself kit. Personally I like to get under the hood.

A few years ago Apple was using Motorola CPUs and AppleSeeds
I talked to would say crazy things like, "A Motorola 300 MHz
is faster that a Wintel 800 MHz any day." Apple was marketing
by portaying windows as a snail. Then Apple switched to the
much maligned "Wintel" chips because Motorola couldn't keep
up with speed advancements.

But I do agree that they do a beautiful job with the design of
their finely crafted, overpriced baubles -- except for those
cloyingly cute cartoon icons on the "dock" that look like they
were designed by a 12-year-old girl who's in the habit of dotting
her i's with little hearts. ... I wish tech people would stop equating
non-tech-aptitude with stupidity and childishness.

| however, microsoft is indeed copying apple, right down to the stores.
| they're also copying the pricing, which is why windows 8 will be $40,
| since os x is $20.
|

I'm not sure that's why Win8 upgrades are so low, but
it's certainly true that MS copies Apple. They all copy each
other. The difference is that Apple claims their version is
original, high-end art and tries to sue competitors out of
business.

http://weknowmemes.com/2011/10/apple...ide-to-unlock/


| > Twice in the past I tried installing Linux Suse and Mandrake/
| > Mandriva. I decided on a basic test to decide whether Linux
| > was ready to be usable:
| >
| > 1) I should be able to configure the system and software
| > through the GUI. Console windows should *never* be a
| > requirement in an OS that postdates 1995.
| >
| > 2) I should be able to set up a usable, flexible, easy-to-
| > understand firewall that can block outgoing.
| >
| > 3) I should be able to easily do disk image backup, on
| > a system that's not excessively bloated.
| >
| > The first two tests have failed in the past. I never got
| > to the third test. I recently downloaded Suse 12.1 and
| > am waiting for the inspiration to try my test yet again.
|
| all very good points, and for what it's worth, that's easily done in a
| gui on mac os x.

Did you ever see the Outlaw Josey Wales? Clint Eastwood
gets followed around by a dandyish tonic salesman in a snappy
white suit (circa 1870). The tonic salesman repeatedly steps in
to say that his tonic is the ideal cure for whatever the current
need is. Finally, Josey/Clint turns to him and says, "That tonic
can do just about anything, huh?" He then spits a mouthful of
chewing tobacco onto the lapel of the man's white suit and asks,
"How's it work on tobacco stains?"


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mayayana
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-13-2012
| You keep resisting the suggestions to download trials, but doing so
| would make a lot of your questions unnecessary. You can't download
| and use a trial of LR because you have XP and the only trial available
| is not compatible, but you can download Adobe Elements 10 and get a
| feel for the RAW processing controls in two or three evening sessions.
|

I'm not resisting. Just trying to gather info. and narrow
things down before spending a lot of time trying out things
I might end up ruling out. I just tried Corel AfterShotPro,
but that doesn't seem to be usable. I've been trying the OSS
programs. I'm happy to try things. Elements is $100? That's
pretty expensive, don't you think, given that I only need
raw editing. And as noted before, while I don't rule out
Adobe I'd prefer to avoid them. I'm guessing that Elements
is proably stunningly bloated, like most Adobe software. But
I can't even find out without signing up to give them marketing
information just in order to try out the trial version. In fact
I can't even download the trial version until I allow their
invasive, superfluous download helper program to be installed
on my system. That's the kind of sleaze I want to avoid.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RAW vs JPEGs - Does RAW show more detail? Tim Digital Photography 117 04-17-2007 03:02 PM
RAW Viewer for wide range of RAW formats greymfm Digital Photography 0 06-14-2006 09:12 PM
[Maxxum 7D] Dimage RAW Viewer v. Adobe Raw Plugin Alan Browne Digital Photography 3 03-12-2005 04:17 AM
Adobe PS RAW convertor vs Nikon RAW convertor Vlad Gunko Digital Photography 8 01-25-2005 07:43 PM
How raw is RAW format? Editor www.nutritionsoftware.org Digital Photography 4 12-22-2003 07:33 PM



Advertisments